If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

Please correct my grammar!

Hi everyone!

I would like to ask a favor from the community.
Unfortunately I dont know any native english speaker personaly, so I thought I ask for help here.

I study computer science and paleontology is my hobby. Using my knowledge about genetic algorythms and prehistoric animals I've created a theory which matches the reality much better than anything I have encountered so far. After I shared my theory with my friends they convinced me that it's an idea worth spreading so i made a website. (degenerationtheory dot weebly dot com)

My problem is that i don't want to risk the credibility of my theory with my poor english. I tried my best but my English is still not enough for a scientific debate.

I would appreciate if someone could correct the errors I made and mybe rephrase my weird structures and sentences if necessary.

Thank you in advance!

here is the content of my website:

Introduction

The degeneration theory is an improved version of Darwinís hypothesis. Itís save to say that every evidence of his theory also supports the degeneration concept while all the flaws of evolution are actually strengths of degeneration. In fact, the majority of material evidences of evolution are misinterpreted proofs of degeneration. Darwin created a wonderful hypothesis but unfortunately it isnít at all supported by fossils, so instead of trying to interpret fossils as they could fit in the theory we should listen to what they actually say. This is exactly how the degeneration theory was born.
The degeneration theory is based on the following thesis: Every form of life is originated from a superior form, which implies that every living being can be derived from one of the few distinct initial genera. Applying this thesis on vertebrates means the following:
Every vertebrate and chordate animal is degenerated from a highly complex common ancestor (an initial vertebrate) according to the given environmental conditions.
To make it simple: we are not evolved from fish but degenerated from ďbirdsĒ. Of course those ďbirdsĒ were very much different from modern birds, but they had wings and laid eggs. The following coherent reasoning presents the facts and tendencies leading to this conclusion.

Transitional fossils

The lack of convincing transitional fossils has always been a huge drawback of the evolution theory. The transition from fish to tetrapods is a crucial element yet there is no convincing fossil evidence to support this transformation. On top of that, the pure existence of snakes proves the improbability of such change. Snakes had lost their legs for a reason. They teach us something about evolution. They teach that slithering or snake-like motion is much more effective than using little legs which are in a vestigial/undeveloped stadium. Swimming as a motor-coordination is way closer to slithering than walking so there is an extremely higher probability for a creature which switches from aquatic to terrestrial life to slither than to attempt ďwalkingĒ. (Can you imagine that a tictaalik would try to crawl on its tiny, slippery fins instead of simply slithering?) Slithering predators wouldn't let any animal develop legs. Snakes show us exactly what happens when a certain species switches to terrestrial life after spending a long period of time swimming.

The tictaalik is supposed to use its fins to crawl then walk instead of slither like snakes do.
The final judgement over the earlier theories about this transition was a quite recent finding. In 2010, tetrapod footprints were found in Poland which were securely dated at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids (fishapods). This finding undisputable proves the failure of all the previous conceptions and dates.
In the January of 2010 the evolution theory with all its hypotheses and dates literally collapsed.
The importance of this information canít be overreacted. This changes everything. Four legged terrestrial vertebrates were walking on the earth more than 400 million years ago. Everything that evolutionist scientists stated earlier about tetrapodomorpha, fishapods, elpistostegids and the corresponding dates has proven to be fundamentally wrong.
While the transition from fish to tetrapods is still (or again) doubtful, we donít have to prove how easily a four limbed creature can degenerate into a fish-like animal. Ironically evolutionists often use the ďtransformationĒ of cetaceans as an evidence of evolution when the question of transitional fossils sets forth. This is an obvious case of misinterpreted evidences. The possibility to change from tetrapod to aquatic form doesnít imply it can happen vice versa. The snakes prove it canít. These kinds of changes are irreversible.
There are bigger problems than the lack of transitional fossils though: we canít speak about gradient transition across the timeline either. According to the advocates of evolution, first vertebrates appeared ca 500 million years ago and the earliest tetrapods appeared more than 400 million years ago. They must have had all the limbs, joints, muscles, lungs, functions and features that would require perspicacious explanations. No such drastic structural change happened since then (during the past 400 million years), and no change that would necessarily need long series of beneficial mutations. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was born as recognition of this serious problem. And then the dinosaurs ďappearedĒ. No matter how desperately evolutionists try to describe dinosaurs as they were primitive reptiles, they appeared way too early and they were way too complex than they could fit in the evolution theory.

Dinosaurs

The animals we call reptiles these days have little to do with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs might have laid eggs and some of them might had scales, but recent studies prove they might have been warm blooded as well, and the bones of dinosaurs more closely resemble those of mammals and birds than reptiles. If this wouldnít be enough, a whole new concept of feathered dinosaurs is arising. More than 20 genera of dinosaurs have been discovered to have been feathered. Still calling them reptiles is very misleading, because most people associate this word with primitive, undeveloped, small brained, cold blooded animals.

Feathered dinosaur
There is also a common misconception about dinosaurs having walnut sized brain and being less intelligent than an average crocodile. Actually the Tyrannosaurus Rex for example had bigger brain than humans and recent studies suggest most dinosaurs had roughly the same intelligence as of average birds and mammals in the present. The previous estimations about their intelligence were based on the false assumption that as modern reptiles their brain occupied only around 50 percent of the endocranial volume. This assumption has proven to be wrong.
Calling them reptiles and all the other misinformation about these animals serve one purpose: hiding the fact there was no progressive evolution during the past 250 million years. Considering the 400 million years old tetrapod footprints it becomes questionable if there was a progressive evolution ever at all.
The hair/fur of mammals is a simplified, degenerated version of feathers, theria (live birth) is also a simplified, less save and less effective way of reproduction than laying eggs, and about lactation; we cant be sure at all if dinosaurs had lactation or not.
Apparently scientists donít want to admit this, but we have dreadfully little information about these animals. They are still the greatest mystery of biology and history. Examining their bones can bring up many interesting questions though. Why were they so enormous, why was bipedalism so common amongst them? The members of Sauropodomorpha (one of the oldest group of dinosaurs) were bipedal as well and they dropped on all fours eventually. The same tendency seems to stand out as in the case of transition between fish and tetrapods. What made these huge animas erect on two legs and why modern animals donít seem to progress this way? According to the degeneration theory the answer is simple: They had never walked on four, because their forelimbs used to be wings. Both feathers and skeletal structures support this concept. Not to mention the lack of a convincing theory for the evolution of flying. There are a bunch of complicated and smart theories on this subject, such as the cursorial theory, the wing-assisted incline running and the arboreal theory. None of them is supported by fossils and each of them has a very low probability against degeneration. As an example; according to evolutionist biologists bats had been evolved from shrews. Letís imagine that transition with any of the flying theories above and compare the probability with the answer of degeneration. The degeneration says a population of bats had become overweighed so their wings became useless and disappeared over the ages, so thus shrews came to existence. Probability is definitely on the side of degeneration just as the fossils and the similarities of species.

Re: Please correct my grammar!

The similarities of species

The evolutionist explanations for the similarities of species which had been separated early are the ďconvergent evolutionĒ and the ďparallel evolutionĒ. These theories along with the fossil records make the creation of a polygenetic tree immensely hard. If we accept the axioms of evolution (the greedy algorithm mixed with beneficial mutations) and imagine such model at work it would result a much wider diversity of skeletal structures.
If all the vertebrate terrestrial animals are originated from primitive chordates or fish, like coelacanth, it would open a wide opportunity for skeletal builds.
All the mystical creatures like centaurs, hippogryphs, pegasuses and other 6,8 or more limbed structures should/could exist. Considering the success of arthropods the viability of these structures canít be denied. In reality all terrastial vertebrates have (or had at some point) 4 limbs, a tail and 5 toes on each limb. Birds and horses also had five toes. Why are there five toes? The past 400 million years proved tetrapods donít need five toes and it also proved animals are loosing and not gaining toes over time. When and why were they gaining them, and why did it change? The functions behind reproduction (the greedy algorithm) didnít change so there is no reason for such tendency change either.
The solution is presented by degeneration again. It is much easier to create a polygenetic tree if we define the initial common ancestor of all vertebrate as a four limbed animal which had at least five toes on each. To make one step forward it must have had wings as well. Te fossil records suggest they had laid eggs and had feathers. To conquer the oceans it must have had gills and lungs simultaneously. There are vertebrates which have lungs and gills simultaneously these days as well. They are the lungfish, and they are very interesting creatures.

The c-value paradox

The lungfish are remnants of the past when animals had lungs and gills simultaneously. Fossil evidences suggest they have remained virtually unchanged for well over 100 million years, making them living fossils and one of the oldest living vertebrate animals on the planet. For someone familiar with the degeneration theory it is not surprising that a certain species of this order has the biggest genome amongst all the vertebrates (50 times bigger then the human genome), but for evolutionist biologists it was an enigma, therefore they called this phenomenon the c-value paradox. Is it a coincidence that those animals which havenít been affected by evolution for millions of years (maybe as a result of frequent parthenogenesis) have the largest genome? It still doesnít mean lungfish would be superior, they are already degenerated and simplified creatures but they clearly show the tendency of decreasing genome size over time, which is contrary to the evolution indeed.

The australian lungfish
Later when non-coding DNA had been discovered this enigma considered to be solved. For a long time non protein coding DNA was called junk DNA so it became irrelevant what size of genome certain species have when the most of it are actually genetic junk. This approach has proven to be wrong. It has been discovered that these non protein coding sequences have meaning as well, many of them have important functions as transcriptional and translational regulation and some of these sequences are responsible for the regulation of the immune system. Is it a coincidence that the Australian lungfish has a lifespan over 100 years? It is remarkable for a fish. Maybe the human genome could use some more junk DNA as well. The size of the genome is not at all irrelevant. The additional non protein coding sequences contain information as well, only we canít understand all of this information yet.
The most convincing evidence of this statement is that the distribution of nucleobases in non-coding DNA is not at all random. The entropy and other statistics of these codes are very similar to human languages.

Are there traces of the initial language coded in our DNA? It is not impossible.

Human languages

There are quite a few theories about the origin of language. These theories have common features like each of them assumes a complexity increment at the beginnings and each of them lacks evidences. All the ancient scripts and other remnants of ancient languages clearly point to an opposite tendency. The ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Chinese and all the other old languages as far as we can see back were more complex than their modern descendants. They had more complex grammar which allowed expressing more information with lesser words. This reduction of complexity in languages is a fact, but when did the increment stop and why did the degeneration begin? The ancient languages we know are extremely hard to learn and it is very challenging to use their complicated grammar precisely for a modern person. Which means the people who used them in a daily basis must have been at least as intelligent and sophisticated in the way of thinking as modern people. According to the scholar history books first civilizations appeared around 5000 years ago. By then these languages had already been there. Why did those primitive nomad tribes need such refined grammatical system who lived before civilizations.
The Hand and Arm Signals for United States Army consists of around 50 signs and it is more then enough to execute complicated cooperative tasks. Complex grammatical rules, prefixes and suffixes are not needed for such tasks. Not many more words (maybe 200-300) would be required for the simple hunting lifestyle prehistoric humans supposed to live. The level of complexity of the ancient languages makes them capable of expressing very sophisticated thoughts and to describe detailed and complicated mechanisms. This level of complexity doesnít offer evolutionary benefits for a primitive hunting tribe.
The evolution theory also assumes that the intelligence and the cranial capacity of human beings have evolved, increased over time. There are many contradicting evidences which actually prove the degeneration and explain the existence of these complicated languages.

An elongated skull (video)
It is rather well known that both the people of Neanderthal and Cro Magnon had slightly larger brain than modern humans, but there are more confusing fossils from all around the world suggesting there were people on the planet with twice as big brains than ours. These people are called the coneheadheads.
The cranial capacity of these skulls reached 2500 cm3 which is enormous compared to the average 1400 cm3 of modern people.
Of course these skulls donít really fit in the original theory, so they didnít get as much publicity as this issue deserves. The evolutionist excuse for the existence of these fossils was the aesthetic artificial cranial deformation. The problem with this explanation is that pressing someoneís skull could not result in a growth of cranial capacity. So we can add two more things to the list of tendencies which prove degeneration: degenerating languages and shrinking human brain.

The logarithmic tendency of evolution

First it has to be clarified what the purpose of the natural reproduction through the greedy heuristic is. The method of the reproduction favors the interest of the population over the individual. Its purpose is to make the next generation viable in the given environmental conditions. This is the adaptation. Considering this nature of the method accumulating evolutionary traits is very unlikely. If a species has a certain trait that occasionally beneficial for some of the members but in most cases it is unnecessary for surviving, that trait will disappear. This is the case with the disappeared tails, toes and limbs and this is the mechanism of degeneration. All the traits and functions that are not necessary in a given environment start to degenerate then disappear. A static environment like a deep ocean accelerates this process. There are no extreme conditions, fast temperature changes, winds, high trees to climb in the ocean, so most of the functions of an average terrestrial creature become unnecessary. In a relatively static environment creatures start to simplify and as they simplify the reproduction rate becomes higher and faster in general. As the reproduction becomes faster the degeneration which works through reproduction becomes even faster making the animals even simpler and so on. This means degeneration is an accelerating, exponential function and doesnít need much time (compared to evolution) to succeed. This also means that degeneration reacts to the environment and its rate is corresponding to the environment effects.

evolution and degeneration on the same timeline
The evolution, on the other hand, is a whole different story. Beneficial mutation - the essence of the theory - doesnít happen on demand. It is completely random so you canít urge this phenomenon, which means the rate of evolution does not accelerate. In fact itís not even static.
The reproduction rate in the evolutionary direction is continuously slowing, so the function of evolution is actually a logarithmic function and therefore it needs infinite time to succed.
Aside form all the fossil evidences and other pros and cons of both theories this pure mathematical illustration favors degeneration unequivocally since it doesnít require near as much time as evolution.

Re: Please correct my grammar!

last part....

The entropy and the genetic algorithms.

ďIn classical thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is defined phenomenologically by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant. Thus, entropy is also a measure of the tendency of a process, such as a chemical reaction, to be entropically favored, or to proceed in a particular direction. It determines that thermal energy always flows spontaneously from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, in the form of heat. These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.Ē
Every advocate of evolution knows that entropy canít be applied on their theory because earth is not an isolated or closed system. Earth emits rays (energy) from the sun. Is this really that so evident and indisputable?
Evolution is a very simple model. Basically it is a greedy heuristic (survival of the fittest) mixed with some random mutation, so it is an algorithm that runs through reproduction. This model has nothing to do with earth being a closed system or not, that is completely irrelevant.
Evolution says complex and creative solutions can be produced by using the greedy heuristic with random mutation. Fortunately it is very easy to illustrate this model on computers and in fact there are several programs using this algorithm. But if they would work as evolution supposed to, computer science wouldnít need programmers anymore. A.I would already been born. What these programs are really capable of is optimizing parameters for a certain task if the program is well prepared for that task. This optimization is equivalent with the adaptation in nature, but adaptation isnít equal to progression and donít lead to an increased complexity. You canít optimize parameters for a task that the given creature or program is not prepared for. This is the case with fish; they canít adapt to terrestrial life and walking while birds can. During optimization unnecessary components and functions can disappear for more effective results, but new complex and creative solutions wonít come to existence this way. This is true both for genetic algorithms and natural selection.

Conclusion

The tendencies of reality and mathematical probability indisputably support the degeneration theory, though evolution has its ansvers for everything as well. There has to be answers, it is a 150 years old theory and thousands of scientists worked hard to produce these answers and theories for every posible issue. They have built up a well detailed and structured system, they reworked and updated it many times according to new findings, yet many of those answers are unacceptably improbable. Tolkienís word of Lord of the Rings is also a well detailed and structured system with maps and dates, but it still considered to be fiction. Darwinís evolution has one mayor advantage over degeneration theory: it serves a simple understanding of the universe.
The reverse evolution presented above brings up a very inconvenient question: Where are these complex common ancestors from? Currently it isnít possible to give a scientifically decent answer for this question, but one should not close his eyes and bypass reality by choosing a much less probable theory, only because it leads to an easier, simpler but false understanding of the universe.